Final QandA to Draft Documents.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 12 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 47QFSA20N0009
About this file
This document contains a federal contract opportunity for procurement of SOF Tactical Combat Casualty Care Casualty Evacuation sets. The solicitation will utilize FAR procedures and is set aside for small business. Required products include CASEVAC sets and associated extraction, mobility, transportation, and sustainment kits and modules in Multicam and Coyote colors. The draft RFP and documents are available for industry feedback until May 22, 2019. General Services Administration Federal Acquisition Service Assisted Acquisition Services Region 4 will serve as the contracting agency. The opportunity includes CLINs for the equipment, training, engineering changes, and product improvements with inspection and acceptance at origin and destination of Kentucky.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Draft General Instructions to Offerors ITO s.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft Evaluation Factors for Award ID04200024 Oct 2020.docx | DOCX document | |
| PPQ_20200709.docx | DOCX document | |
| Industry Day_Slides QA.PPTX | PPTX presentation | |
| Evaluation Factors for Award.docx | DOCX document | |
| LOM Rev 01 Appendix A BetaSam June 22 2020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| General Instructions to Offerors.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft SOW_TCCC CASEVAC Sets May 7 2020_.docx | DOCX document | |
| General Info for Beta.Sam Synopsis.docx | DOCX document | |
| Industry Request Beta.Sam.Gov Brand Name_.docx | DOCX document | |
| DRAFT CASEVAC CDRLs Exhibit A_2.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft Brand Name J_A BetaSam_Redacted May 7 2020.pdf |
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Topic | ANSWER |
| Instructor Resumes. Are they exempt from the technical page count. | Yes, resumes are exempt from the page count in the technical volume and are to be submitted as an appendix with maximum three (3) pages per Resume. |
| Brand Name Alternative Proposals | For Brand Name Alternatives (Not Brand Name Only) Offeror is responsible for providing salient characteristics and compelling information on how the alternative item(s) is/are an acceptable subsitute. This is not part of the page limitation of technical and should be provided as an appendix limited to one (1) page per item. |
| CLIN 0009 CDRLS (Not Separately Priced) Will there be a Program Management CLIN | No, Program Management and other functions will not have their own CLIN not be paid separately. |
| SOW 4.11 - Does this apply to Materials, Publications, or other Deliverables | This is for data deliverables for Val/Ver Only |
| SOW 4.12 Where within the proposal (i.e., in which Volume/Factor) should Offerors include "proof or existing, or completed proposal of future capabilities for security, storage and insurance requirements"? Would the Government confirm that such documents are NOT included within the page limit? | A summary in the technical volume and additional information (i.e. ISO 9001 Certifications, Property Surveys…) should be provided as an appendix to the technical |
| Given the overlapping requirements among some of the subfactors within the Technical Volume, the limited page constraints (<20 pages), and the evaluation criteria of technically acceptable or unacceptable by each subfactor, would the Government deem technically acceptable a proposal that cross-references among subfactors (within the same volume)? Cross-referencing within the same volume would be done as an alternative to reiterating the same information in response to overlapping requirements that appear in more than one subfactor. | Yes, so long as the cross referencing information is identified. |
| Could the Government please clarify the definitions of the four relevancy determinations? Specifically, must the PP contract reference entail equipment and training, and must the equipment and training both be medical and/or rescue in nature? | The table explains the relevancy requirements. |
| In the Relevancy definitions, where a forward slash '/' appears, does the '/' indicate "and" (where Offerors would need to show relevancy to both items in order to meet the definition), or just one or the other of the items? | It means and/or |
| In order to evaluate whether an Offeror's prices are so low that it reflects a lack of technical understanding, or that the low prices may reflect unacceptable technical risks, would the Government consider conducting a price realism analysis on Offerors' proposed prices? | We are not doing price realism. We will conduct an evaluation of fair and reasonable pricing and balance. |
| Given the Government is "more concerned with obtaining superior non-price features than with making an award at the lowest overall price," could the Government expound on the rationale for eliminating the Combined Technical/Risk Rating (originally Table 7) as part of the technical evaluation criteria? | This is not considered a technically complex acquisition |
| Based on Slide 26 from Industry Day, does the Government still intend to modify CDRL A008? | No |
| Is it possible for an Offeror to achieve a "High Confidence" Confidence Assessment even if one or more of the PP references is deemed lower than "Very Relevant"? | Yes |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .